Talk:Blackface

denial of blackface being racist.

certain users are making vandalized edits trying to protect political figures from their racist actions . anyone denying that blackface is mockery of blacks and racialized peoples is a white supremacist. just as holocaust denial is also white supremacy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/blackface-is-white-supremacy-as-fashion--and-its-always-been-in-season/2019/02/07/fdb60c06-2b1e-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html 70.30.146.188 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, based on historical, folklore, social and post-colonial research, there's an ongoing and highly controversal debate if the practice of 'blackfacing' should be regarded (and forbidden) as a decisive 'racist' practice or not, reaching from a complete denial up to statements like "anyone denying that blackface is mockery of blacks and racialized peoples is a white supremacist just as holocaust denial is also white supremacy"

As the term'blackfacing' is defined highly different and and applied on to different phenomena, geographical areas, groups of people involved, historical periods and their - very different - corresponding traditions and practices, a conclusive answer, if or if not the practice is ment and used in a potentially racist context must always depend on a deep understanding of it's historical, practicological, psychological, ideological and social context, wich - for example - is highly different between the "morisco dances" first occuring as far as we know - in the late medieval mediterranean, or the 'classical' example of pseudo-'black' Soul and Blues bands or Comedians in the USA and Great Britain during a period between the late 19th century and about the 1970s, made up of 'white' artists,'blackfaced' in a practice and style clearly indicating, showing and transmitting dusguise, mockery and even open racial prejudices against black and other people if colour.

So, as always, when it comes to history, heritage and phenomena of popular culture knowing and understanding (historical) context and is everything, as things looking very similar at first glance, can indeed have completely contradictionary sources and meanings. Special warnings to American readers included, when it comes to European phenomenons. As those phinomenins are not only much older, they base also on a completely sociohistorical context and history, which is much more diverse, complicated and ambiguous and therefore much more difficult to research and to understand, as it is regularly the case, with the relatively young, unambiguous and quite comprehensively documented American ones. Especially as the - often completely unreflected and unchanged - introduction of historical theories, methods and interpretation schemes, developed and based in US-American examples, has led to huge misinterpretations and misunderstanding of phenomena in other parts if the world, and especially in a Europe beyond the British isles, often completely unknown or simply underestimated, if not ignored in its complexity to and by American and even British scientists, leading even to the misconception, racism, biologism, primordialism, imperialism and/or colonialism would be a - pretty recent - and 'exclusive' European invention, practice and 'export'...

So untill those phenomena are much better understood and researched, the wide spread practice of defining Non-US-American phenomena as 'blackfacung' or even 'racist' isn't only highly inaccurate, unscientific and anachronistic, it also bares the very real risk to be based on highly inaccurate, imperialistic and even racist stereotypes itself - like everything imposed on a culture or region by another, very different and far away one.

How difficult and misjudged things can get, if not done on a proper knowledge if the case, actually can be seen in the debate about the 'moores head' in the Coburg city blason, where stidents inspired by post-colonial theory and the black lives matter movement in a shirt trip to the city where 'shocked' and started a petition against the further use of a 'racist Moorish head' in the cities coat of arms...Nor they know, who was shown, nor why, nor that the Nazis once had done the exact same as the Coburgs more should - and was indeed during the NS-regime banned from use in an extreme racist attempt to 'arify' and 'whiten' the cities history, appearance and image, in an attempt to make forget, that there was more than a millienua of history, when the main and highly venerated Saint and Identification figure of the Holy Roman Empire, and therefore the Imperial court, many noble families and even whole regions and cities was Saint Mauritius, depicted and visioned as a Roman soldier from Northern Africa and clearly with 'black' skin and African origin at least from the Hugh medieval if nit the Middle and Early Byzantines time...And yes, believe it or not, in an attempt to protect their 'black' and very African identification figure, national and regional symbol, Saint and hero, the Coburgians hide and protected hundreds of pictures of Saint Mauritius from the Nazis, only to become now the aim of an historical completely uninformed mob, who tried to make vanish these depictures and symbols of a millennia old, and very 'different' African-European (hi)story again...And yes, as the Hohenzollern do originally came from the same Franconian Region, and their family Saint also is the 'Moorish' aka 'black' Saint Mauritius quite some historians also claimed the infamous and now renamed 'Moorenstraße' in Berlin, may didn't refer to any kind of racist tradition, but, in sharp contrast, to thus very much connecting and highly antiracial tradition of the "Black" protection Saint if the whole Holy Roman and later German Empire...And no, it even could be, this tratition line in Berlin (not in Coburg, not in most other places) was blurred quite on purpose and replaced by an other more'colonial' and therefore 'racist'storyline of black colonial soldiers suspected living there, when the Hohenzollern attempted to become (and became) an colonial power themselves more than 800 years, after Mauritius became the Black Saint, Protecting and Identificatiin figure of the whole Empire, connected even to Christ itself...And yes, it even could be the now attaced '(Venetian) blackamoor' could be in fact a slightly dusguised Saint Mauritius, as Venice owns quite some reliquies of this Saint, and pictures of the Saunt often were worn as some kind of talisman all around Europe. Also there's actually emerging a very similar storym concerns pro-black-activist attacs against the few remaining "Moorenapotheke" in Germany, whose "Moore" denomination is depicted as "colonial reluct" and "racist" in many post-colonial publucations... Unfortunately, the scientists and activists making thus assumption did a very bad job in researching tbe topic, as it has become clear, the Apotheken-Moor or pharmacy moor in English (or black African) predates any European colonialism by centuries, and derives directly from an hagiographic Episode of the two Medicine and Pharmacist Saints Cosmas and Damian, who according to the pious legend pretty much saved the live of one if their white patients by the miraculously sucessfull (!) amputation and transplantantation of the keg if a 'black' person, or vice versa...Honestly said, the Greek and Latin Versions of the text are a bit confusing, and could also be read as the succesfull healing or amputation of a gangrene and therefore 'black' leg...But this isn't his the story was actually read and depicted, as from the Middle Byzantine era on, there was the story of a Moore healed by the amputation if a white leg, or a white healed vuce versa with a black one, cinected wuth the clear message that race should be of no matter, neither to medicines, nor to pharmacists nor to their patients...And so the Moore out of this Episode became the trademark sugn if Pharmacies, nit fir the exotuc goods, but for shouting out the message, that everyone of every race is welcome and will be treated the same as a mere human, as race makes abso,Ute no difference and should be completely irrelevant for a pharmacist or anyone else...

So things are complicated, and a black face in Europe nit always must be something racist,,even if it is crowned, or wears an golden (ear)ring or necklace (all part of the hagiography, and actual signs of the high rank and not the inferiority of the depictured!).

Same with the 'blackfacing' of one if the holy king's, wich weren't holy nor kings nor three, but simply were depicted as living symbols of the unity of all mankind, as only 3 continents (Europe, Asia and Afrika) and their predominantly 'white','yellow' and 'black' populations were known around the year 1000 (or earlier, it's quite unclear if it was done already earlier) to those, 'inventing' and imposing this symbolism and depiction to the Biblical story of the 'magoi' honouring baby Christ in its creddle...and no there's no rank, nor racism in the message, just unity and equality if all mankind and races, so we may should think twice, if we really understand the message of a 'black(faced) face', and should at least accept, not each black facing automatically includes or trasports a racist message...This even more so, as some of the most noble 'white' families of Europe and Asia are quite proud, still caring and showing of their real or assumed 'moorish', 'black' or 'african' genealogy and heritage, sometimes beeing much closer related to some of the bug mythuc African heroes and heroine than most black activists even know, immagine or - unfortunately - can accept...

Things are complicated and sometimes very surprising and different in the old world...

So all this is said to show how difficult the 'right' interpretation, and therefore decission, if or if not something has a discriminative' or 'racist' connotation can and must be, without knowing the exact historical context...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-ried (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Either there is enough of a consensus that blackface is always racist (and therefore should be condemned in every case), or there is a significant controversy (or at least a few legitimate exceptions to the condemnation rule).

The lede paragraph defines blackface as darkening the face to make a "caricature" (but caricatures can be either insulting or complimentary). It might be interesting to our readers to distinguish between blackface examples which are regarded as insulting and those regarded (even by a minority) as somehow acceptable. We have started to do that by mentioning the movie Tropic Thunder. I have also seen singing acts in old movies with stars such as Judy Garland and Bing Crosby which (to my possibly biased eyes) didn't seem particularly insulting or degrading to African-Americans.

I'm particularly interested in the reasoning which gives examples like this a pass. Also, the controversy over whether (a) every example should be condemned on (b) a rare number may get a pass. Who decides, and on what basis? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Our role as Wikipedians is to present content with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT and with a WP:Neutral point of view. Blackface as written about in the literature is widely condemned as racist in the vast majority of sources, and the Wikipedia article currently reflects the literature. Any counter opinions are controversial, and would be considered WP:FRINGE opinions. We have to be careful in the way we present topics surrounding racism, and not give undue representation to fringe ideas; particularly when they may do harm.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"Only a slim majority of Americans condemn it. And there is a vast gulf between Democrats and Republicans." Washington Post --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So maybe the article should indicate the "slim majority" opposition to blackface along with the decidedly non-fringe support of occasional exceptions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A one off poll (of questionable design) from over five years ago that was created to attract click bait does not constitute significant coverage, nor does it add encyclopedic value or truth. Polls provide opinions but they don’t provide knowledge about anything other than the people polled. A third of all Americans couldn’t locate the Pacific Ocean on a map according to this: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/geography-survey-illiteracy We rely on expert opinions to determine what is verifiably true not popular opinion because the general public isn’t reliable and is often ignorant. We are looking for scholarly works/opinions from subject matter experts not a questionable poll that at this point is pretty old and out of date.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music F24

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 16 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oatesalexandra2004 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kpcw24 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Legitimate use of dark makeup

Can we distinguish between (a) demeaning and humiliating instances deliberately aimed at putting down black people and (b) innocent darkening of human skin for medical or military purposes?

For example, my negro drill sergeant told me to apply black camouflage pigment to my face during a basic training exercise. Was this racist? On whose part? Should I have protested the order?

If there are legitimate (if rare) cases of legitimate face darkening, should we describe them in the presentation article or just with a link, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the scope of this article. Blackface by definition is a "performance practice" and refers to the use of face darkening techniques within "entertainment" specifically. Military face paint is something else altogether as it is neither performative or entertainment. Same with medical conditions such as treating vitiligo with pigment darkening ointments or using make-up to cover white patches. Neither of these are relevant to this article, and they don't need addressing as they are completely unrelated to this topic.4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)